Determining Function Axes, Part 1

By Ryan Smith and Eva Gregersen

“I referred to Heraclitus, and [Jung] said Heraclitus knew a lot and he had got the notion of the enantiodromia [i.e. “law of running counter to”] from him. [He said] it was important to have a philosophic background to know the theories of cognition.” – E.A. Bennet: Meetings with Jung (Daimon 1985) p. 27

Fe/Ti vs. Fi/Te

If a person has an Fe/Ti axis, then, all other things being equal, he will tend to see all men as being essentially “cut from the same cloth” (Fe), while all observations pertaining to Thinking will unconsciously be seen as universally accessible, regardless of who made them (Ti).

To give an example of what we mean, take the following characterization of the philosopher Immanuel Kant:

“Kant … was much bothered by the common opinion that philosophy is only for the few … because of this opinion’s moral implications.”

That is to say, according to Kant’s natural preference, all men should be capable of accessing and understanding the points of philosophy (even though they plainly are not). And Kant was also “bothered” by the implication that if not all people were able to understand philosophy, then that would imply that not all men were “cut from the same cloth.” This is circumstantial evidence of a Ti/Fe axis in Kant.

Thus we have explained the Ti/Fe axis. By contrast, if a person has a Te/Fi axis, that person will be more inclined to view each person as unique, different and very much his own person (Fi). And with this differentiation – all men being decidedly NOT cut from the same cloth – a hierarchization of people is implied (Te). Ironically, I-FPs will often vehemently deny that they subscribe to any such worldview featuring a hierarchy of people and may even denounce such views as unethical. But they are really no different from the other Te/Fi types: It is merely their own inferior Te which they are denouncing.

You don’t believe there’s a difference between people? Really? Then how come you’re the one up on the stage with 40,000 people down there adulating you?

Function_Axes“But couldn’t this also be said of Fe/Ti artists? Are they not also up on the stage?” Yes, but the point is that as a rule, the Fe/Ti artists will not pretend that everyone is equal on the emergent level. Everyone was cut from the same cloth in the beginning and then people have differentiated themselves from there.

Se/Ni vs. Si/Ne

If a person has an Se/Ni axis, then that person’s observations will be more singular and intense (Christopher Hitchens, Oprah Winfrey, General Patton). The person will stress one point of view (Ni), which is indeed frequently the viewpoint that generates the greatest yield here and now (Se). The singularity of observation involved will frequently lend a manifest and immediate quality to the Se/Ni type’s observations, which in turn tends to make them convincing.

On the other hand, if a person has an Si/Ne axis, that person’s observations will be more multifaceted, drawing upon multiple perspectives at once (Ne). The person will also be more careful and meticulous (Si) because there is an unconscious striving to contribute one’s observations to building a system which is valid not just in the here and now, but which is perceived to be true in general: To generate the type of knowledge that could conceivably end up in a future textbook on the subject.

“You’re saying that EN-Ps are cautious and meticulous? Really?” Yes, actually we are. We’re saying that yes, EN-Ps will fling themselves at the unknown, sometimes to make bold and half-baked claims, but (again, all other things being equal) they will also be quick to withdraw from those claims again, and that is a kind of caution.


  1. This is a great post it really sheds light onto the whole function business, and definitely helps me see the difference between introverted functions vs extroverted ones.

  2. My guess is INTJ/INFJ

    I think the post extraverts judging since it’s deliberately trying to explain something rather than stating facts with as much precision as possible.

  3. You write these posts why I like CelebrityTypes.
    I’m looking forward to your posting too..
    Is that Possible?? What do you think??

    .. I’m not good at English.. I’m a Korean.
    This is the only site in English that I visit.
    that means I really really like your articles.. (-,.-)

  4. You don’t have any board that guests ask something but also e-mail address to contact you.
    Is it right that I see?
    I’d just like to confirm that.. so please understand me I write down on ‘comment’.

  5. On the official MBTI, I scored ENFP, but on the Keirsey test, I scored ESTP. It seemed to me that the questions of the MBTI were posed so that I answered them according to what I considered the ideal for me, i.e., who I wanted to be, whereas with Keirsey, I answered them according to how I really am. I’m not sure if this has been anyone else’s experience, or if I incorrectly answered the MBTI owing to a true S nature (having not fully understood the instructions since they were not spelled out!), but if anyone has any insight to why this may have happened in my experience, I’d appreciate the feedback. Thanks.

  6. Ti/Fe – Everyone can understand, so anyone can make it if they so choose
    Fi/Te – We understand, so those who commit to the cause will make it


  7. This is an interesting post. I found the “singularity” of Se/Ni to be particularly cool.

    I would respectfully disagree that Fi/Te axis implies hierarchization. That is strongly opposed to Fi ethics of equality. True, Fi-types like to think they are special, but that does not mean better. They think they are special in the sense that everyone is special in their own way. Hierarchy is irrelevant. INFPs are about discovering each and every person’s uniqueness–everyone has a gift, so therefore no one is better, just different. Thus Myers (an INFP) has a book called “Gifts Differing.”

    At the same time Fe and Se can be about hierarchies. Fe recognizes social hierarchies. Se can also has a respect for status.

  8. Thanks! You are right that Fi>Te types usually dislike hierarchization. If nothing else, the point is that Fi>Te types evince a concern with hierarchization that is not in the same way bedrock to Fe/Ti. Jung originally thought of the function axes as Heraclitean oppositions; i.e. like a road where each function was connected to its opposite. From this point of view, even the opposition showcases the preoccupation with hierarchization, which finds its opposite in the Te>Fi types who indulge in it.

    Yes, other types can also be influenced by status and hierarchization as you say. Specifically with Se, though, status is not quite the same as hierarchy. You are correct to point out how it is more often status that influences Se.

    We have read Gifts Differing and we refer to it on the site many times.

  9. Really great post. It answered many questions I’d had about functions, but created a whole lot more. I’m new to typing. I want to get a better sense of what my personality type and style are. I tested as ENTP. I’ve taken a few tests and I’m most often ENTP with a “weak T preference.” Sometimes (more rarely) I’ve tested as ENFP but with a very weak preference for F. I’ve read several descriptions of both types and can see traits of both in me for sure. I identify with the ENTP descriptions more than the ENFP ones. Could anyone give me insight into how to go about identifying functions within myself to distinguish between the types (understanding that I could find that I’m neither type in actuality)?

  10. ENTP: Ne-Ti-Fe-Si
    ENFP: Ne-Fi-Te-Si
    So your need to distinguish between the Fi/Te and Ti/Fe.

  11. Thanks for the advice and all of the resources. After reading further and more in depth, it’s starting to appear that I’m actually most likely INTP which I would never have guessed. The articles and infographics have been quite helpful.

  12. Some pretty great heuristics. Though I have a couple questions indirectly relate. I’m assuming that you find yourself in situations where a person’s best fit type based on E/I opposing function pairs is not consistent with their type based on function preference independent of the attitude. For instance, you type Jung as an INFJ but I’m sure you recognize his Ni and Ti as more prominent in his conscious expression (Or do you?). Similarly, you type Taylor Swift as an ESTP but from my observations of her and current typological understanding, it would seem that her Se and Fe hold primacy. I have found myself in such conundrums when typing friends of mine. I have two that are clear Fe dominants, and very extraverted ones at that. Discerning by just the strength of their perception functions, friend A is an S –> ESFJ and friend B an N –> ENFJ. Upon closer inspection of their function attitudes, however, friend A is an Ni/Se type and friend B an Si/Ne. How do you typically interpret cases like these? What do you declare as each individual’s true preference of his/her middle two functions? Do you believe that the top two functions can have the same attitude? If so, must it be unnatural or unhealthy?

  13. Thanks.
    Yes, we allow for the fact that there are differences in prominence, i.e. quantitatively, that seem to circumvent the order of the functions. However, the essential matter from a Jungian perspective is not quantity (as most people erroneously believe) but quality, as we explain in this article:

    So if you wanted to approach type assessments the same way we do, you should not assess your friends by the _strength_ of their functions, but rather go with the latter possibility you present. E.g. if A is an Fe type with Ni/Se when he must be an ENFJ *or* A is not really an Fe type. There are cases that are confusing in the way you describe, but we would say they are very rare, like less than 5% of all people.

    Thanks for your interest in the site.

  14. Just because a person comes across as a more prominent “user” of a certain function does not imply that it is more active or conscious function mentally. A persons circumstances like friends, family, upbringing, childhood, career, workplace dynamic, intelligence and a host of other factors contribute to how someone behaves.

    For example, many women will appear to use their Fe function (or Te synthetically) a lot more actively than most men since they have been conditioned to overvalue social interaction. As a result non FJ women will often become exhausted a lot easier due to social situations even though they may seem very competent in this area.

    Since we cannot brain scan a type (yet) we are left with trying to induce a type through what a person chooses to extravert, either consciously or subconsciously. This is an imperfect approach, but is the only approach available and is highly dependent the person having a wide variety and amount of available data about them. So if we were to, for example type a person that for some reason or other tends to play a role in their interviews and comes across as highly personable, it would be easy to overvalue their Fe function. This person might act very differently alone or with close friends. Or perhaps in the case of a person with social anxiety who has for some reason taken an interest in some academic pursuit and is reclusive we might overvalue their Ti function.

    In addition the second and third functions have a more balanced and healthy relationship and will often work in concert with each other. As opposed to the first and fourth who tend to have a more dysfunctional relationship. I find that a good approach if you’re certain of the first function, but unsure of the second is to look at the second and third as a whole and try to figure out what the extrovert one is. In extroverts this is especially helpful as their second function is often “hidden” behind their first and third and will very much operate in a support capacity.

  15. Hi,
    i have a question. First sorry for my bad english. I want to ask if i am ENFP of ENTP. I will make it quick. Simply i see myself as ENTP because of “thinking” opinion of how should people and world work. I love to analyse everything to its principles ( look to me like Ti using). But then there is a problem. I am sometimes very emotional. But not like Fe but Fi. I mean by that that my emotions are sometimes “inside”. I am for example sometimes very sad for something someone told me. And I thhink i have sense of how people around me feel in the moment. I want to say something clearly, but i still feel that it can hurt that person. I dont know … Thanks for answer.

  16. I found this article helpful.

    However, the title is misleading – when I read the word “dirty” I was expecting something along the lines of a Sasha Grey video. Imagine my disappointment.

  17. Jirka, what you are describing sounds a lot more like Fe than Fi. When people use “inside” to describe Fi it is more in the line of how it has no need to be shared and doesn’t naturally seek to be a part of or adjust to other peoples feelings.

    Someone with Fi in their stack wouldn’t naturally empathize with someone else unless they can find common ground, like a shared experience. Conversely someone with Fe seems to be able to emapthize with anyone and everyone and for a lot of us with Fi their empathy seems shallow in comparison to our own.

  18. The bit about us IFPs denouncing our inferior Te hits really close to home. I feel like you guys turned a flashlight inside my brain.

  19. I just have to say that the comment in the article in retort to Fi types: “You don’t believe there’s a difference between people? Really? Then how come you’re the one up on the stage with 40,000 people down there adulating you?” to be very weird. That need for adulation is not very type specific. If anything, Fe can create a big PR campaign for its own sake. Se-Ni being called “intense” is fitting because both Se and Ni are intense. To call “Fi-Te” hierarchical…not so sure. INFPs are the least power hungry of all types, they hate hierarchy, and to their detriment. Like once they realize they are about to become famous they hide away from sight. They are not very good at attaining power and they don’t even want it. I think hierarchy is more not a specific dyad of opposite functions. Rather Fe pays attention to social hierarchy, Se to power dynamics (ESTPs like to find ways to climb the power hierarchy), and Te of course likes hierarchy. These three are hierarchical functions. I don’t imply judgment though.

  20. Aren’t the Perceiving functions Si, Se, Ni, Ne and the Judging functions Fi, Fe, Ti, Te? … Is the image wrong? Or am I? .-.

  21. Can you guys reconsider Beyoncé’s typing? She really seems like Fe to me. Look at this quote by her “I’m a people pleaser. I hold a lot of things in. I’m always making sure everybody is okay. I usually don’t rage; I usually don’t curse.” Also her whole image is so cut clean and precisely crafted for the people to believe she’s flawless.. Is that really Fi-like?

  22. Why you guys don’t type fictional characters? They are (kind of) celebrities, and many of them (like Hamlet, Dorian Gray, Sherlock Holmes…) are very ‘human’. Their physiques seem to be defined as well as a human being, it would be even easier (I think), because you have access to most of their meditations and motives, and we could use serious help, there are many forums without analysis or serious thought; you could even open a new page about them.

    P.D.: I don’t mean EVERY fictional character (Optimus Prime, Sonic, Mario), I mean seriously developed characters (Dr. Jekyll, Romeo, the Quixote… Even Batman has lots of things to cover, who i think is an ISTJ).

    P.D.II: I would like to know Bill Nye’s type °3° Please? Please reply to this, thanks for reading.

  23. This is a response for Another One.

    Well, you can think it this way: Fi dominant ISFP is strongly linked to the dependent personality (Often characterized by conflict evasion, agreeing with everyone else even if you made up your mind already and being inept).
    I’m not saying that they all have a dependent personality disorder, but if Fi is about making everything as you want (which is not), an Fi dominant would always do things his way and not asking before doing things.
    Some Fi users seem to behave like this, INTJ’s, INFP’s, ENFP’s, but, as I said, Fi is not about being impulsive and Fe is not about agreeing always with people.

  24. “Ironically, I-FPs will often vehemently deny that they subscribe to any such worldview featuring a hierarchy of people and may even denounce such views as unethical. But they are really no different from the other Te/Fi types: It is merely their own inferior Te which they are denouncing.

    You don’t believe there’s a difference between people? Really? Then how come you’re the one up on the stage with 40,000 people down there adulating you?”

    Seriously? You’re actually going to make the argument that there’s somehow an ironic “contradiction” between believing in uniqueness and believing in egalitarianism?

    How fucking absurd. You can acknowledge that people have different strengths and weaknesses without believing that this somehow makes them intrinsically “better” or “worse” than everyone else as PEOPLE.

    The fact that this smug, condescending endorsement of a Fascist worldview is an official article makes me seriously doubt the credibility of this website.

  25. @regis

    The fact you take the article to be an endorsement for a fascist worldview makes me seriously question your intelligence.

    But, assuming for the sake of argument the site administrators ARE fascists, why on earth would that have any impact on how well they understand typology – or anything else?

    You’ve completely misunderstood the whole thing, it seems.

  26. @Rachel

    Endorsing Fascism, anti-egalitarianism (which this article irrefutably does, if you had actually bothered to read the section I quoted), or wannabe Nietzsche bullshit intrinsically destroys a person’s credibility in ANY field, because Fascists are fucking morons who reject even the most basic components of rational study.

  27. @Regis

    “…Fascists are fucking morons…”

    Your hatred of fascists doesn’t seem very egalitarian. “Everyone is of equal worth” blah blah…

    And I wonder why you think fascism is the opposite of egalitarianism? I’d say they’re not so far apart. And neither make much sense, when you think about it.

  28. @Rachel

    Being a Fascist is a choice. Hating someone for what they choose to believe isn’t the same thing as believing in a natural hierarchy of people or being opposed to equal rights.

    And Fascism is literally the polar opposite of believing in equality for everyone. How could someone possibly think otherwise? Also, your rejection of both ideologies leads me to believe you’re some sort of Ayn Rand or Nietzsche fan, so I find you questioning of MY intelligence to be more than a little amusing.

  29. My two cents…

    Being a fascist is NOT a choice, any more than anything else. Nobody decides to have a particular worldview. Do you think the average Nazi decided to be a Nazi, or that physicists decided to have a worldview based on science, or that most Creationists decide not to believe in evolution? That’s very simple-minded.

    Believing you are superior to people who think differently is EXACTLY the same as believing in a hierarchy of people, and dismissing people’s work in unrelated fields because of their political views is EXACTLY what is meant by “being opposed to equal rights”.

    You believe in equality for “everyone except fascists and Rand/Nietzsche supporters”. That’s not egalitarianism. Egalitarianism says EVERYONE is equal, regardless of race, gender, intelligence or worldview. Your view is closer to fascism, ironically enough. I’m sure many fascists see themselves as upstanding egalitarians.

    Nope. I have no interest in either of those “philosophers”. Sorry.

  30. ?

    Literally everything you listed IS a choice. Sure, you could make the argument that someone is a “product of their environment”, but that doesn’t make them incapable of choice, empathy, or rational thought.

    And, at no point did I say that I want to prohibit the human rights of Fascists or that I view myself as inherently superior to them. I just think they’re fucking morons and borderline sociopaths.

    If you don’t mind me asking, what DO you believe? So far you’ve discounted any form of leftist thought (unless you want to claim to be a non-egalitarian leftist, which is ridiculous), Fascism, and “libertarianism”

  31. @Regis

    Fair enough. Good points. :)

    I don’t know enough about politics to come to a clear conclusion, to be honest. I’ve read very few books on the subject, taken no classes, and don’t understand 99% of the philosophies involved. So, really, I shouldn’t be having this conversation as I’m speaking out of my ass as usual.

    Have a great day. :)

  32. I apologize as this probably does not belong here, but could someone explain to me the difference between cognition and behavior?

    I’ve been trying to figure out my type for the longest time, but no matter how much I study the functions, I keep telling myself “I’m [blank] because I do [blank].”

    For example, in Elementary school I was extremely kind, warm and feminine. But after many bad experiences I’ve become somewhat of a pessimist and tell myself that I am a thinker. I cannot separate kindness and personal from F and cruelness and impersonal from T, as I cannot separate hedonism from Se, randomness from Ne, and memories from Si.

    But then how can one know ones own cognition?

  33. I would have thought Fe the more likely to be hierarchical because hierarchies effect social structure and, therefore, social good?

    I don’t think that just because an IFP type (I am one of these, just FYI – this may reveal my biases and struggle with my shadow!) is up on a stage with 40 000 people, that they will think they are inherently better than any one else. In fact, I would think that Fi would say, simply _because_ everyone is unique, that everyone is equal. It doesn’t imply that some are naturally better.
    I would say I very much tend to view all people as ‘cut for the same cloth’, so I must admit I am a bit confused by this distincton between Fe-Ti and Fi-Te.

  34. Ever since learning about the function axes from this site, I like to think of the ordering of the MBTI functions in this way:

    You have:

    – one dominant function (your most preferred, most prominent function)

    – one unrepressed axis regardless if its a judging or perceiving axis. Since you have a strong preference for one function while repressing the other, one axis is going to be evident but will only come out through the dominant function

    – one repressed function (which will come out in different ways through the dominant function

  35. Regarding JBoyle–admins/I have discussed that issue quite a bit, and I’m forming slowly a picture of how different people answer that question regarding top two function-attitudes.

    The origin of the idea that they should be in the same attitude stems from a pretty different place.. it is that the attitude belongs to the ego, not to the function, and its opposite to the unconscious. The key thing this implies is that introvert/extravert is a sort of general singularly defined theme that you can combine with the various functions to produce different types.

    I think the reason some go a different road is that if you let the attitude belong to the functions more closely, then you get that a function-attitude isn’t just the sum of 2 different themes (e.g. feeling+extraversion), so much as a unique theme (1/8) of its own right. This means the sense in which “outer-orientation” applies to N differs from how it applies to T or F.

    I definitely think in Jung’s work, it’s unfinished/undecided exactly which of these perspectives one “should” take. On the one hand, his category of introvert/extravert contained many of the things today’s Five Factor Model or MBTI instrument version of I/E adopts, and in this case I/E is a distinct dimension of personality with a meaning of is own rather than something that changes in meaning in a way intimately tied with the principle of a psychological function.

    Since the site admins focus on cognition, vs the FFM version hardly endeavors to do this in its version of E/I (which it generally just calls “E”), it’s perhaps natural that they lean more the second perspective (in my understanding of their work).

    It’s good to note how complementary vs how opposite things are depends on in what sense you’re using them — Myers-Briggs have a kind of “judging-perceiving” dichotomy in their instrument, where there’s no reason people would tend to have a lot of both. But in Jung’s cognitive focus, people tend to naturally need to appeal to both perspectives — irrational and rational — to defend the ego. It’s possible site admins’ view that e/i are both present in the 2 most differentiated functions (vs viewing E/I more as genuine opposites, with one rejected and one preferred) also draws from the especially cognitive focus on what role extravert-introvert should play. For instance, one can mostly remain within one’s shell and live like a hermit behaviorally… but cognitively, to justify one’s stances, perhaps it can be argued a greater balance of inner and outer factors is needed.

    Regarding Jung’s Ti/Ni, I have to agree that if you adopt the admins’ definitions, it’s not clear he is especially Ti in the sense that you’d e.g. mistake it for his dominant.

  36. Whoops, didn’t finish my thought there on the sense in which Jung leaves aforementioned question unfinished: the point was that Jung both writes of that dichotomy (introversion-extraversion) stuff that greatly resembles what goes in the FFM version of things (in which case you should view it as a distinct, independent thing of its own, not something intimately tied in its meaning depending on what function it’s attached to) … and a lot of other stuff. If anything his version of introversion-extraversion was so giant that it had little structure and filled a ton of the book. I’d say it is still clear *he* thought of it more in the way that it’s a property of the ego directly, not as much tied to a function (at least when he wrote Psychological Types), but he left the field open for something closer to the perspective in this article to be formulated, since he included too much to reasonably fit in one category. That in particular suggests that one might view his “dichotomy” as something to be split into several different ones (e.g. Fe vs Fi, Te vs Ti, Se vs Si, Ne vs Ni). A lot of the modern function-attitude theories focus on these divides.

  37. “Ironically, I-FPs will often vehemently deny that they subscribe to any such worldview featuring a hierarchy of people and may even denounce such views as unethical. But they are really no different from the other Te/Fi types: It is merely their own inferior Te which they are denouncing.”

    The same can be said about I-TPs who would deny that they care about society as a whole, even though they still hold the perspective that people have equal value while denouncing their inferior Fe.

  38. Since every function as a subjective experience cannot be emulated by any other function (say Fe giving the same experience as Fi), then there is an inherent “lack of insight” each one of us has towards the unfamiliar functions that we do not have.

    The brilliance of Determining Function Axes Part 1 was in fact going beyond that and achieving deep communication between the types/functions through nothing but plain language.

    Unfortunately the rest of the series mostly does not have the same effect so the authors have not succeeded in replicating it.

  39. “If a person has an Se/Ni axis, then that person’s observations will be more singular and intense. The person will stress one point of view (Ni), which is indeed frequently the viewpoint that generates the greatest yield here and now (Se)”

    “If a person has an Si/Ne axis, that person’s observations will be more multifaceted, drawing upon multiple perspectives at once (Ne). The person will also be more careful and meticulous (Si).”

    Can someone give any practical examples as to what any of this means? How is Cobain’s views multifaceted compared to Trent Reznor? How is Kendrick Lamar more careful and meticulous than Eminem?

  40. “Ironically, I-FPs will often vehemently deny that they subscribe to any such worldview featuring a hierarchy of people and may even denounce such views as unethical. But they are really no different from the other Te/Fi types: It is merely their own inferior Te which they are denouncing.

    You don’t believe there’s a difference between people? Really? Then how come you’re the one up on the stage with 40,000 people down there adulating you?”

    Wow, this is so illogical and unprofessionally written that I’m actually questioning the credibility of this site. Granted, I’ve been on the fence for a while, but I mostly ignored what other criticisms this site has gotten. I actually don’t know that I want to finish the rest of this article, just because I don’t want to waste my time with incorrect information. I know this article is pretty old, but if I were an admin I would fix that part. Then again, the admins may completely disagree with me, in which case my opinion on this site would be cemented. I don’t mean to seem harsh, that was just so strange to read.

  41. Admin,

    I agree with Sara actually. :)

    It’s not a very good way of explaining the point you’re trying to make (in my opinion) about FiTe, and I’m sure a lot of IFPs don’t relate to it at all. :)

  42. Sara,

    I agree with you that point is poorly explained – in fact I think the example given is incorrect. But I do agree with their underlying theory. Here’s how I understand what they are saying (which the admins may well disagree with)…

    Rather than the pop star and fans example, where the pop star believes she is better than everyone – an example I think maybe describes narcissism better than the FiTe axis – I think it might be more helpful to think of two mothers going into school after their children had a fight with each other.

    The Fe mother, although she cares very deeply about her child, has much more of a drive towards affirming both sides and trying to find an amiable solution everyone can agree with. She might suggest that the children try to see things from each other’s perspective, shake hands, and agree nothing like this should happen again. In other words, though the Fe type has a deep well of caring inside for their own personal values, their Fe forces them to also take others’ values into account and try to strike a compromise.

    The Fi mother, although she knows inside that the other mother cares deeply about their own child too, is much more driven to put the interests of her own child first, and is more likely than the EFJ to give a passionate defence of her own child’s good qualities – even if it creates a very awkward social situation filled with conflict – and to put the blame in no uncertain terms on the other child. IFPs sometimes cannot help being very passionate about their interests and championing them when they are threatened or dismissed – and they are not the kind of people to compromise in these matters just for the sake of harmony. :)

    Of course, I’m just using this as an example to illustrate how the FeTi and FiTe types approach SUBJECTS IN GENERAL – in reality most people are touchy where their children are concerned. :)

    So I don’t think the point is really about IFPs wanting a hierarchical superstate. Rather the “hierarchy” of IFPs is more internal – putting one’s own personal values above those of others, and championing/enacting those values when they can. But IFPs also tend to understand that other people have their own personal value systems too, and they usually want others to follow their own value systems too. So although they do see a conflict of values on one level (hence the need for championing their own), they nevertheless like the idea of everyone having their own perspectives.


    Te, the IFPs inferior function, does tend to like the idea of hierarchy – but not really in the way I think you are imagining. :) They aren’t fascists or people who believe in a “superior race” etc.

    Instead, the hierarchy ETJs would love to see is much more rational. TJs love competence, and tend to have a deep belief that the most competent people (at whatever field) should rise to the top – getting paid the most and getting the most important, responsible jobs – while the least competent should fall to the bottom, or get a different job.

    There isn’t much ETJs dislike more than seeing incompetent people in top jobs simply because they have a charming personality, or because they had friends or family members pull strings for them.


    Anyway, I hope maybe this clears things up a little, Sara? :) Sorry if I haven’t explained myself very clearly.

  43. The point is that IFPs have inferior Te. This is how I would put it today:

    “By contrast, if a person has a Te/Fi axis, that person will be more inclined to view each person as unique, different and very much his own person (Fi). And with this differentiation – all men being decidedly not cut from the same cloth – a hierarchization of people is implied (Te). Ironically, IFPs types will often vehemently deny that they subscribe to any such worldview featuring a hierarchy of people and may even denounce such views as unethical. But they are really no different from the other Te/Fi types: It is merely their own inferior Te which they are denouncing.”

    The language of this article is comical and brief as opposed to many of the other articles on the site that use a more scholarly tone. I think DFA 3 puts the above point the most clearly or sympathetically. The point is that the preconception for perceiving objects in terms of differences/hierarchies is in an “all else equal” manner tied to the Fi/Te axis, moreso than the Fe/Ti axis.

    The following articles go into the same point as well:


  44. Hope to one day see Gary Oldman, Harvey Keitel, William Dafoe, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Jeremy Irons, Samuel L Jackson, and Dustin Hoffman on here.

  45. Dafoe – INFP
    Oldman – INFJ
    Rickman – ESFJ
    Fiennes – ISFJ
    Branagh – ESFP
    Tim Curry – ESTP

  46. Viewing everyone as different need not suggest a hierarchical view. I think of everyone as different and enjoy the differences, but I don’t think some people have more worth than others. Difference is not only interesting, but genetically helpful.

Comments are closed.